Coventry Student Accommodation Complex Refused Again

The development, which was planned in Earlsdon on land at the south end of Regent Street, was due to consist of 234 studio rooms.

This marks the second time a student development plan has been rejected in this location by Coventry City Council, with the previous application denied in September 2021. In the case of the first application, the refusal came on grounds of the impact it would have caused to local residents.

On this occasion, the project was turned down for similar reasons. The increased demand for on-street parking, as well as the no noise measures being taken into consideration, were amongst the issues.

The application was made by property agent GW Planning on behalf of the Regent Street Partnership.

As stated in the planning papers, the development was: "To achieve high-quality student accommodation that will significantly contribute to the long-term student needs in this area whilst being fully compliant with the Coventry City Council's urban regeneration, design and sustainability policies.

"The design considerations for the proposed development have evolved from developing the client brief within the urban planning considerations of the immediate site surroundings and the wider context of Coventry."

Coventry City Council's decision notice stated: "The proposed development would be contrary to Policies H10, DE1 and AC3 of the Coventry Local Plan 2016 and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework by reason of the scale and significant intensification of use of the site to the serious detriment of the living conditions of neighbouring residents from increased noise, general disturbance and comings and goings from the student accommodation which will be in particularly close proximity to the properties and the boundaries to their private rear amenity space.

"Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would result in an increase in demand for on-street parking in the locality where demand is already high and capacity limited, to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent properties."